Huckabee, go _uck a bee, go _uck yourself! The sad thing is that he is not the only one who has that kind of thinking. I'm afraid that there are plenty of such people.把學校(public)和神分隔開 doesn't mean that the parents and/or the kids don't believe in God. Most people in the US do. It's over 80% according to some poll. If there is something to complain about, it should be by those who don't believe in God. What about the Pledge of Allegiance in public (grade) schools? It has the word God in it.When I have or spend greenbacks on which In God We Trust is printed, I feel my freedom of religion is violated. --zpdrmn

You have the right to not believe in God. But it's a fact that Christian values (e.g. Ten Commandments) help build a moral standard. Huckabee's point is simply that when God is not welcome in schools, Christian values evaporate. And it's his opinion that it directly leads to a decline in moral standard. Why is such a view so wrong?

I have to say this is an unbelievably simplistic reply that's missing the point.

// 道德教育可以全然不需宗教. //

The Ten Commandments tells us 'thou shalt not kill', and throughout history it has helped human beings in many cultures to stick to it (or evolve to respect this rule), that killing another person is not right. You know something is not right and where did it come from? Have you ever examine whether it's not related to Christianity that helped shape our societies to be more loving and civilized? Or did you steal the values from the source and then claim you never needed the source?

What I get from Huckabee's opinion is that the killing monster didn't come out of nowhere. The more we get rid of God and His teaching from our society and education, the more we'll see people who deviate from the values we once treasure, for example 'thou shalt not kill'.

匿名12/19/2012 2:08 下午,Did you say that ancient Chinese people (or other people) had worse or didn't have moral values before they knew about Christianity??

Thou shalt not kill! What kind of morality is that? That only means thou shalt not kill people. Buddhism says thou shalt not kill animals. So, it is better than Christianity?? People cannot kill people. But God can. What kind of morality is that?

Having this religion stuffs embedded in morality can lead to problems. (Another problem is when some people claim that they had revelation from God and do things contrary to some moral values, Christian ones. These people may well be Christian leaders.)

Even though religions (not just Christianity, let's have a boarder view) shaped morality in some regions in the past, still we can do 全然不需宗教的道德教育 today. You want to just stick with the past, go ahead.

BTW, even if there was no Christianity in the past, people back them could still find a way to do 全然不需宗教的道德教育. They might have done even better. How could you know Christianity made things better but not worse? You can answer that? Mind you, you aren't God. And please don't give me the "the Bible says that" answer. It may be convincing to you, but not to me.--zpdrmn

Thank you, I appreciate you take the time to reply and didn't just call me stupid.I respect you choose a different worldview, but let me explain what I see. Let's not talk about Christianity for now, since it means nothing to you.

If you think "you should not kill people" is obvious, and that it would remain true in our moral values even without a God to teach us, maybe we should look at the reality, not only the past, but the current trend.The Chinese has long history of having capital punishment, sometimes the method is even very cruel. China has long been one of the countries without proper human rights. "Everyone has a right to live and be protected" is not so a-matter-of-fact.People get killed at wars, not just soldiers, but even innocent civilians.Nowadays many countries also allow killing unborn babies, and some countries allow euthanasing (killing) the sick and disabled.I don't think we always stay true to the virtue "you should not kill people", people are just deciding "under what condition" one can kill.Now, under what condition? How does humanity decide?First we can kill the criminals, and then the unwanted unborns, then the terminal ill.Since a few years ago, Netherlands decide to allow killing handicapped babies, even after they are born and alive.Now, where does the moral value "you should not kill people" come from?

When I look at the way humanity is going, I think we're pretty lost. Look at the latest headline:瑞士 倡亂倫合法化http://www.metrohk.com.hk/index.php?cmd=detail&id=150422Where is 全然不需宗教的道德教育 going?I think "if there is no God, everything is permitted" has a point, because base on what merit we listen to one another regarding whether something should not be permitted?

// Buddhism says thou shalt not kill animalsI don't agree, because I don't think human beings should be seen on the same level as animals. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't behave the same when I saw a car roll on a squirrel vs. a pedestrian.

(cont'd) You "don't think human beings should be seen on the same level as animals." That's fine, but that's your moral value. Some people don't see it that way. Who's there to say that yours is better? You? God? The Bible? BTW, I'm not a Buddhist or a vegetarian, but it doesn't stop me from using them for comparisons. It seems to me Buddhists are more compassionate than Christians in this respect.

The current trend. Who's there to say it's bad or worse than whatever?In some sense, the current trend is better than what it was in the ancient Christian countries. Who's there to say that it isn't true? You? The Bible? God?

Who's there to say that homosexuality is bad. You Christians?

Who's there to say Christian morality is the only way or the best way to go? You? Some Christian? Any one? A special one? A leader? God? The Bible? --zpdrmn

Clarification://Who's there to say that homosexuality is bad. You Christians?// I am questioning why Christians, in general, hate or intolerant of homosexuality. If we leave morality to such haters or intolerant people, is it a good thing, even though they hold on to their moral high ground? High ground isn't really high after all.--zpdrmn

I don't think "you should not kill people" is obvious. (Whatever obvious mean.) I don't even think much about "thou shalt not kill." It's you who said/quoted it and I used it. If your position is "thou shalt not kill" no matter what, that's your thing, then you have to build your morality around it. You can stand on this moral high ground if you want. Other people don't have to. Who's there to say that "thou shalt not kill" is the yardstick to measure moral standards?

I wasn't talking about what it is like in China today. So, don't use it to argue against whatever I said. Whatever it is now in China, you can't just say that it is because it bans Christianity. That's too simplistic. Capital punishment occurred in Christian countries in the past too. I think it happened quite frequently. So much for "thou shalt not kill." Some punishments in those countries were very cruel too.Also, even though capital punishment happened in ancient China (and other countries), do you assume that Chinese people back then killed each other cold blood in the street like killing pigs for food? And do you think that when they did it, they didn't follow some laws or some moral standard, even though it wasn't "thou shalt not kill" no matter what, and/or even though you don't like those laws or standards. For sure you can find some laws or standards that were really bad, to today's standard. But did they just, in general, killed people cold blood?

全然不需宗教的道德教育 isn't necessarily followed by 亂倫合法化 or whatever you regard as immoral. Please don't use slippery slope.

Whatever killings in whatever country you are talking about, you can't just simplistically say it's because the country doesn't follow Christian ways. And you can't just simplistically say that they have a low standard in morality.Whatever moral values a people regards as good don't have to be Christian moral values. Whatever you think as high moral standard, they may think otherwise.

Euthanasia may not be a bad thing. Abortion may not be a bad thing. Killing certain criminals like serial killers may not be a bad thing. Outlawing such practices may not be a good thing in all cases. (What may not be good: Don't allow abortion in rape cases or health threatening cases. Don't allow very old people who suffer and in great pain due to sickness to die in a humane way. Keep people who is brain dead alive with machines.) All these aren't that black and white, they all depend. Why do we have to follow Christian morality? It is a narrow view of ethics.

"Under what condition one can kill? And how do we decide?" Or should we kill at all? Not necessarily by Christian values. Why would going by Christian rules is better? For all peoples? Many wars were fought under the name of God. Who decided to go to those wars? Under what conditions one could kill in those wars? And how did people back then decide? God's revelation? From the Bible?It doesn't matter how "high" a people set its moral standard, "immoral" things still happen. So, should I use a tactic similar to slippery slope and say that 'high' moral standard or Christian moral standard leads to plenty of "immoral" deeds?Well, a people who thinks that they are right, they have high moral values, they are the authority in morality, and/or they have God backing them, could do even more harm than a people who doesn't think it that way. Should I use the slippery slope tactic again?

Countries that have outlawed capital punishment do not necessarily do it because of the Commandment "thou shalt not kill." You'd better check their reasoning. Some of those countries may not be Christian countries.The US, with mostly Christians or people believing in God as citizens, still has capital punishment in some states. (To be cont'd)